[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080708234120.5072111f@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:41:20 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: hch@...radead.org, miklos@...redi.hu, tytso@....edu, pavel@...e.cz,
t-sato@...jp.nec.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, dm-devel@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
axboe@...nel.dk, mtk.manpages@...glemail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:22:56 +0200
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 08:13:21AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > This would mean that freeze and thaw will have to be done on the
> > > same file descriptor, but this isn't unreasonable to expect, is
> > > it?
> >
> > It is certainly not the current use case, where you run one command
> > to freeze the filesystem and another one to unfreeze it.
>
> So instead of
>
> freeze_fs mountpoint
> backup-command
> unfreeze_fs mountpoint
>
> the user would have do to
>
> run_freezed mountpoint backup-command
>
> I find the second one nicer, regardless of any reliability issues.
nah he needs to do
make_snapshot ; backup-command ; unref_snapshot.
freezing isn't the right solution for the backup problem ;)
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists